RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law

RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 7:25:20 AM)
quote: The "Piltdown Man" is a famous anthropological hoax HOAX is not a legal term in any law dictionary I have and I have a shit load of them. forgery IS a legal term in that it is a crime as I already have shown you. moonheads use with regard to my point does not rise to that level.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 7:29:28 AM)
but you would have to have a cogent bloody point. which you don't now or ever have had.

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 8:52:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moonhead's use with regard to my point does not rise to that level. No, it merely pointed out that your original point was a load of crap, which is why you've tried to wiggle out of that by splitting hairs about definitions, rather than citing any evidence that the original POTEOZ was anything other than a fake.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 9:13:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moonhead's use with regard to my point does not rise to that level. No, it merely pointed out that your original point was a load of crap, which is why you've tried to wiggle out of that by splitting hairs about definitions, rather than citing any evidence that the original POTEOZ was anything other than a fake. Yep thats the way its done in court my friend. I did not try to wiggle out though, I merely defended my position. Forgery rises to the level of a crime and has specific elements (rules) that apply, generic label it anything you please as an acceptable definition with the intent of purporting accuracy simply does not fly, at least not in my world. The word forgery applies to that court case and is restricted as such to the same. Expanding it to mean the entire scope of the situation would in your terms be a forgery, in my terms completely inaccurate and without merit.

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 9:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moonhead's use with regard to my point does not rise to that level. No, it merely pointed out that your original point was a load of crap, which is why you've tried to wiggle out of that by splitting hairs about definitions, rather than citing any evidence that the original POTEOZ was anything other than a fake. Yep thats the way its done in court my friend. I did not try to wiggle out though, I merely defended my position. Forgery rises to the level of a crime and has specific elements (rules) that apply, generic label it anything you please as an acceptable definition with the intent of purporting accuracy simply does not fly, at least not in my world. The word forgery applies to that court case and is restricted as such to the same. Expanding it to mean the entire scope of the situation would in your terms be a forgery, in my terms completely inaccurate and without merit. So you're right and the Oxford Dictionary is wrong, then? Don't talk such utter shit.

rulemylife -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:03:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: The "Piltdown Man" is a famous anthropological hoax HOAX is not a legal term in any law dictionary I have and I have a shit load of them. You definitely have a shit load Oliver Wendell. Fraud Law & Legal Definition Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading. hoax –noun something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax. —Synonyms deception, fraud, fake, imposture, humbug. (dictionary.com)

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:06:26 AM)
What came first? The word, or the court case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_will_forgery_trial (just this is enough to see that 0 stands in no clothes courtswise.) Note that the court was able to hold two concepts in its head, and ultimately found the preceding (original in its inscription) a forgery. 1565–75 or thereabouts was its first known recorded usage. so, we would need to see a court case preceding that date that used the word with legal intent in the case. Otherwise, I am going to call it right now that the OED wins, 0 loses and takes off his pants.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:52:44 AM)
you know its really entertaining the way you always post shit that proves me correct with a claim I am wrong! ROTFLMFAO

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moonhead's use with regard to my point does not rise to that level. No, it merely pointed out that your original point was a load of crap, which is why you've tried to wiggle out of that by splitting hairs about definitions, rather than citing any evidence that the original POTEOZ was anything other than a fake. Yep thats the way its done in court my friend. I did not try to wiggle out though, I merely defended my position. Forgery rises to the level of a crime and has specific elements (rules) that apply, generic label it anything you please as an acceptable definition with the intent of purporting accuracy simply does not fly, at least not in my world. The word forgery applies to that court case and is restricted as such to the same. Expanding it to mean the entire scope of the situation would in your terms be a forgery, in my terms completely inaccurate and without merit. So you're right and the Oxford Dictionary is wrong, then? Don't talk such utter shit. The oxford catalogs all known usages regardless of where they came from. Now you show me to be incorrect by taking a snapshot or post the usage and the terms you are using them in wont say legal or law. The problem you have is the only place the term forgery was used was in a court therefore you need to produce that as in a legal sense not from "words R us.com" or lets tack on any possible usage by any idiot throughout the history of man

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:58:11 AM)
its really entertaining how totally bugshit you are. ROTFLMAO

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:59:51 AM)
ron faking a signature is a forgery and is a crime and again completely in the next universe apart from this discussion.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:06:18 AM)
faking a signature is a forgery, adding an original 2nd sheet of paper with a faked signature to a will, is an original forgery. case closed, perry mason.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:10:47 AM)
adding the signature to it was an original forgery if you want to run on your terms. adding a page to an original will now becomes ONE document the first part being original the second part a fraud. That and this is a LEGAL document which comes under crime regardless if it was only her signature on the original OR if she added 1000 pages to it. again your position is without merit and as I said you prove my position.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:20:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne adding the signature to it was an original forgery if you want to run on your terms. adding a page to an original will now becomes ONE document the first part being original the second part a fraud. That and this is a LEGAL document which comes under crime regardless if it was only her signature on the original OR if she added 1000 pages to it. again your position is without merit and as I said you prove my position. so, your legal opinion is that the second page was xeroxed, that can be the only legal possible explanation. Otherwise, in the fullest sense of the word, the second page was original ; i.e: an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to any copy or imitation.......... and you seem to have at least a rudimentary handle on forgery. otherwise, you are altogether a bugshit.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:26:02 AM)
I am saying that the case you quoted which like that protocol case went to court for forgery. In the case you quoted it met all the tests to be a crime, that is the crime of forgery. Review previous posts. The claim that the original hebrew is a forgery was not on trial therefore no merit can be given to said claim. what can I say, dont quit your day jb man

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:31:28 AM)
And you dont have one. You cavil and whine about myopic shit that has no bearing on anything, there are many things claimed every fucking second of the day that don't require your worthless legal opinion or an unverifiable court case, or a excerpt from the congressional record, or other raving delusion to be absolutely true, 0. This being one of the many. The world outside the asylum works without you, try to grasp the concept, it might get you out on the occasional weekend pass.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 12:02:01 PM)
ron try and keep up man. my mention of the forgery trial is in agreement with ken and moon ok... moon is in error by confusing the matter that went to court with an entierly different matter which is the point I brought up. your version is a series of twist-o-fuck and getting worse by the moment. so try and keep up man. and stop attacking me because you fail to make a valid case or point for that matter.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 12:04:43 PM)
no, actually we are speaking of the concept 'rule of law' something that would completely escape you or be turned into a magna carta or paper and washer argument. you asked how can there be an original forgery? thats where this went. I showed you several original forgeries at which point you went off your medication and isolation.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 12:10:39 PM)
you should have asked for clarification rather than getting on your soapbox and driving in 3 directions at once. That was in reference to the a document claimed to be forged, in reference the protocols which I pointed out the original was in hebrew. (not the same as the version ken put up as being tried as a forgery) the original hebrew did not go into court and there is no evidence that it was forged. the original hebrew is the original therefore it stands it is not forged. therefore how do you claim an original can be forged. now do you get it?

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 12:26:38 PM)
yeah, I get it now, it is what I thought it was, typical 0 asswipe. You went off your meds at post #55 and that is what this is in reference to. Hebrew shmebrew, what the fuck ever, original forgery is what is, what will be and what was, and has nothing to do with rule of law.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875